On Sat, 19 Sep 1998, John F. Woods wrote:
> > Well, not exactly. I don't see why a hard real-time system can't
> > say `nobody gets more than 80% of the CPU, ever.' It's the equivilant
> > of putting a slower CPU in the machine.
>
> A hard real-time can't say that because real-time isn't about
> performance. Real-time is about *predictable response time*, and
> refusing to schedule a real-time task for some period of time just
> because it has been busy means it will blow its response deadline.
How is this different from blowing a response deadline because
another scheduled real-time task ate up so many system resources
that the first one didn't get to execute by its deadline? As I
understand it, if your CPU is too slow, it's too slow, and there's
nothing you can do about it. I'm just proposing artifically `slowing
down' the CPU.
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs@portal.ca> 604-257-9400 De gustibus, aut bene aut nihil.
Any opinions expressed are mine and mine alone.
The most widely ported operating system in the world: http://www.netbsd.org